Skip to content


Srinivasa Naicker Vs. Official Receiver of South Canara - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad224; 75Ind.Cas.172
AppellantSrinivasa Naicker
RespondentOfficial Receiver of South Canara
Excerpt:
- - the property in court had clearly bean realised in the course of the execution by sale or otherwise before the date of the order of adjudication, and it was then excepted from the general provision that such property could not be claimed by any person against the receiver......has been the subject of the present proceedings and which the lower appellate court awarded to the official receiver. in doing so it has overlooked the dates and the facts that section 3d of act iii of 1907 was applicable. the property in court had clearly bean realised in the course of the execution by sale or otherwise before the date of the order of adjudication, and it was then excepted from the general provision that such property could not be claimed by any person against the receiver.2. on behalf of the official receiver it has been suggested that notwithstanding section 31, the lower appellate court was entitled to go behind the language of the decree, in execution of which the proceeds in court or a share in them were being claimed. we have not been shown any foundation for.....
Judgment:

1. We think that this case can be disposed of on a much shorter ground than those adopted by the lower Appellate Court. The insolvent was adjudicated as such on 15th November, 1919. Before that, certain property had bean brought to sale under a decree. The proceeds of the sale were in Court and they are the money, which has been the subject of the present proceedings and which the lower Appellate Court awarded to the Official Receiver. In doing so it has overlooked the dates and the facts that Section 3d of Act III of 1907 was applicable. The property in Court had clearly bean realised in the course of the execution by sale or otherwise before the date of the order of adjudication, and it was then excepted from the general provision that such property could not be claimed by any person against the Receiver.

2. On behalf of the Official Receiver it has been suggested that notwithstanding Section 31, the lower Appellate Court was entitled to go behind the language of the decree, in execution of which the proceeds in Court or a share in them were being claimed. We have not been shown any foundation for that; and we do not think that it is consistent with the object of Section 34.

3. Taking this view, we allow the appeal, set aside the lower Appellate Court's order and restore that of the District Munsif.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //